I remember running into an audiophile who refused to consider anything about room acoustics. He bought speakers specifically for live, untreated rooms.
Refined speakers in a room full of mirrors will sound unlistenable. So the only thing you can do is get a speaker that mulls over some musical details, like the acoustic suspension boxes that used to be fairly popular in the 60's and 70's. You STILL must get a throw rug and some drapes, etc. to reduce reflections in general. Get the speakers off the floor and put them on some sturdy stands. Use putty or blu-tank to fuse the speakers to the stands. Of course this is an arrangement for a system that's used to play (mostly) popular music or rock. But they'll produce strong mid-bass and pleasant mids. As for hight frequencies, you WANT a roll-off so your ears don't hurt. Your entire chain should be unexceptional (but still have some refinements). I'm reminded of an acquaintance in college who played Deep Purple (LOUD) in his dorm with a larger-than-average pair of speakers, The album sounded pretty good to my ears, so I had no complaints. After all, MY stereo at the time was a reel to reel with built-in speakers. OK sound, but without money I imagined it was "magnificent".
The best speakers for bad rooms IMO are the Bose 901's. Those things can be set up darn near anywhere and still sound pretty good. At one time I had them on top of my Dunlavy SC-IV's and they still sounded nice. Go figure.
Whenever my ugly audiophile tendencies rears its head, I'll put the 901's into my system for a while to just relax and enjoy the music.
So is there universal agreement that given $x to spend, one should spend some of that on basic room treatment thereby getting better sound out of whatever speaker is chosen?
Nothing in audiophile land is universal, but the acousticians and my own experience says yes. You don’t have to think of this as a percentage, but room treatment makes rooms more speaker friendly, more bass and subwoofer friendly as well. Many 2-way speakers will sound much bigger with room treatment. So much so a 3-way or subwoofer may be less important.
Timbral balance, imaging, transparency and resolution all are enhanced by a good room. I can highly recommend GIK acoustic products regardless of the cost of the rest of the equipment.
But the point of this thread was, in my mind, a thought exercise, what if these are not options? What then?
I got to thinking, I listen to my stereo indirectly a great deal of the time. I'm at my desk 90% of the time, in the kitchen area, but the stereo is in the living room. Honestly it sounds really nice (for a humble system).
Alot of interesting discussion. When I hear "terrible room" I imagine alot of potential improvement with minimal effort, i.e. low-hanging fruit. Simple acoustic testing could pinpoint the most critical problems to address.
So is there universal agreement that given $x to spend, one should spend some of that on basic room treatment thereby getting better sound out of whatever speaker is chosen?
I use a room that might otherwise have been called "terrible". I did a lot of work to it, but the finishing touch acoustically was the ArtNovion wall treatment. I dislike the appearance of most wall treatment, but what got is seriously beautiful and highly effective on he specific acoustic problems my room had. Having lived through the room problem, the synergy between room acoustics and speakers should NEVER be ignored.
Oh, I believe that different types of speaker dispersion patterns will sound different, and some may sound excellent in a hotel room. I have no doubt that bi-polar or cardioid or line sources are going to attack the problem of the hotel room very differently. I’m not "skeptical" but I’m inexperienced. I would love to hear your speakers at a show.
My comment is more general in that in a poor sounding room audiophiles often attempt to do detailed comparison between speakers or cables or whatnot when I can barely stand to be in the room.
Erik wrote: "One secret, which an ASC guy told me once, but I agree with, is listen to the music in the hallway. You can go up and down the hall and quickly pick out the well tuned rooms without ever having to walk in."
From outside the open doorway, with NO line-of-sight to the speakers, ALL you can hear is the reverberant sound. And if that reverberant sound is spectrally correct (and the dynamics are preserved), there’s an excellent chance the sound in the room is likewise quite good.
This reverberant sound is dominated by the speaker’s off-axis response, and is of course modified by the room, but it would take some very capable targeted room treatment to "fix" a speaker which has inherently poor off-axis response.
On the other hand, an unamplified voice or acoustic instrument would sound totally convincing from outside the room assuming the room isn’t absolutely dreadful, imo in large part because the off-axis energy of the unamplified voice or instrument is inherently correct.
So while I understand what your ASC guy is saying, listening from outside the room can tell you a great deal about the speakers even if there are no acoustic treatments in play. Among other things, a spectrally correct reverberant field is conducive to long-term fatigue-free listening, assuming the direct sound is also correct.
I don’t have anything against using room treatment, but if your speakers start out with spectrally-correct off-axis energy, then your room treatment can be focused on enhancing something which is already pretty good, instead of needing to focus on fixing something which isn’t. (Examples on request.)
Erik again: "Honestly, I simply don’t know how audiophiles audition most equipment in a hotel room, at all."
I understand your skepticism which is why I had hoped we could cross paths at an audio show.
If the speaker system effectively takes the room out of the equation, then the room is no longer superimposing its signature atop every piece of music you play. This would be a situation where you could audition equipment in a hotel room.
One secret, which an ASC guy told me once, but I agree with, is listen to the music in the hallway. You can go up and down the hall and quickly pick out the well tuned rooms without ever having to walk in.
Honestly, I simply don't know how audiophiles audition most equipment in a hotel room, at all.
Dborden702 wrote: "I used to attend many audio shows. The first thing I would look at when walking into a room was how many acoustic room treatments and system tweak toys were in play. The speakers and systems that impressed me were the ones that had none and sounded great."
Nice to hear you notice and appreciate that when you come across it!
[brag] When someone speaks up at an audio show and says they like what they’re hearing in our room, I’ll sometimes say, "the secret is all the acoustic treatments we use." Whereupon they look around the room and notice that we aren’t using any. Just bare hotel room walls.
However the best was when we showed with an industry veteran electronics manufacturer who remarked that this was the FIRST time he had shown in a room where "we weren’t fighting against the room the whole time." [/brag]
On the other hand... having said all that, if the sound in our room sucks, I can’t very well blame it on the room now, can I?
I used to attend many audio shows. The first thing I would look at when walking into a room was how many acoustic room treatments and system tweak toys were in play. The speakers and systems that impressed me were the ones that had none and sounded great. I would even question rooms that would set up the equipment and speakers in weird angles - something I would never do at home.
My room is a little larger than yours - 14 x 26 x 8 1/2 basement room, poured concrete floor and wall behind the speakers. Other long wall faces outside (walk-out basement), other two are interior framed finished drywall. BIG speakers with BIG subs. My problems were much less severe than yours. That said, here are a few suggestions.
I suggest that you go to @home, Hobby Lobby or a similar type of store and buy artificial plants. Big and full with 2" to 5" long leaves, as tall as you can get to fit under your ceiling. If possible, put them behind your speakers, in the corners and behind you Small, maybe 4 foot plants, on the side walls between you and the speakers. They act as big diffusers. That will take care of sound above the upper bass. Also absorbs the sound to help "downstairs."
Bass might be a harder problem. Try decoupling the speakers from the floor. Try using books before investing anything. if you have some Vibrapods laying around try those in the correct rating. Spikes might not help because they are coupling the speaker to the floor.
I'm using the plants in this manner and it works great. Just a suggestion for the floors without any experience to back it up.
@bpoletti Couldn’t agree more! I’ve just moved from a ranch home with cement floors to a two-story home. The second floor listening room is RIDICULOUSLY bad for audio. The floor is acting like a speaker. I cannot believe the difference from the ranch home to the 2nd story home with the exact same quality components making up my 2 channel audio system. The rooms are very similar in size. Basically, it’s a “smallish” room, 11x12x10. The dedicated listening room with the cement floors in the ranch home was ideal for my 2 channel audio system. I had my system “dialed-in” and was thrilled to death with the sound quality I was getting, from an all-tube audio system. Now, I don’t even want to turn my audio system on! Yes, setting up in a “near field “ configuration has helped somewhat to take the room out of the equation and the “bad acoustics” of the room.
For example, it’s harder to follow bass lines and the overall quality of the sound” suffers. There seems to be A LOT of “leakage” of sound. Especially noticeable when walking under the rooms where the stereo is playing. Sounds like a damn night club, thump, thump, thump. Anybody have any ideas to help room acoustics in the Vegas area, other than moving my man-cave, 2 channel audio system down to the first floor living room, which OF COURSE ain’t happening with the ol lady.
Surprised that anyone that sensitive about not changing their room to improve sound would choose that room to set up a system in the first place. Is there no other room in the house that would have better acoustics?
Sometimes performance of the room can be improved by just drawing the curtains - is that too much meddling in the aesthetics?
If putting the system in the best room in the house (from a sound point of view) or doing anything at all to eliminate glaring sonic issues are not acceptable, I'd say that the best speakers for that person would be a pair of really, really good headphones.
Another vote for Larsen speakers. I have a room in which I have little flexibility in speaker and listening position. I've tried a number of speakers in that room over several decades and have never been satisfied. In the last year I installed Larsen 6.2 speakers. After all these years, I'm happy with the sound quality. I enjoy this system as much and in some ways more than other rooms where I have complete flexibility with the speaker and listening position. Others have also been impressed. When I play program material with low bass content, it sounds like I've added subwoofers.
I would agree with what some others have said regarding near field listening, avoiding reflections, and narrow dispersion speakers. As a starting point you also want your seating position in a place where you have the most even bass response - play the room as they say.
I think the most difficult problem do address is bass, and a DSP EQ in the bass region is a great solution. My room is bad for bass from 40hz downwards and I solved this with the Parading Persona 9H...I have a great sound now in my terrible room.
The main problem is not given by the environment, but by the incorrect synergy of the components inserted between them, and many times the incorrect electrical phase. By solving these problems, you can really feel the physical limits of your room. Obviously, in a small room, you can not insert speakers that "need air around", as they would be suffocated.In addition, with a DSP software or an audio calibration process software like Dirac for example, you can intervene on the frequency response by fixing the problems. But it is something that I prefer to avoid, as the end result will always be a compromise.
My room is decent till about 80 hz and then I struggle with bass. I was able to get flat measured response to 20 hz when I carted my dipole? Mirage sub with a 12” driver on opposite sides then all the duct work in my basement listening room started rattling behind the drywall. Gone. The solution for the bass null in my room was trying speakers with different alignment, side firing, rear ported, etc. My kef r107/2 had all the bass emit from an opening at the top of the bass bin right in front of the head unit and I really got great results from them, too bad they couldn’t continue updating that model as the design itself was imo more room friendly than any following reference from that company.
That reminds me of the scene from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, where Brad Pitt (a stuntman) and Bruce Lee have this exchange that leads to something similar. Definitely worth seeing just for that moment alone.
It's rare that a scene can make me laugh out loud, twice.
@nonoise wrote: " That bit of trivia just made my day. "
[Way off topic] As it was related to me:
Some of Gene LeBell’s judo students were doing stunt work for a Steven Seagal movie. Gene was there and objected to one particular stunt on the grounds that it was too dangerous. Seagal suggested that if Gene’s students weren’t tough enough to take the falls, then he’d find others who were. Pleasantries were exchanged, including opinions as to who could kick who’s @$$.
At some point Gene decided that further discourse was likely to be inconclusive, so he took Seagal down and choked him out.
Upon regaining consciousness, Seagal protested that that had been unfair because "I wasn’t ready." Whereupon Gene replied, "Are you ready now?" and took him down again, this time choking Seagal to the point of soiling himself.
I presume there was no more filming that day.
Anyway there was a lawsuit and a settlement and Gene is not allowed to comment on the alleged incident. [/way off topic]
"If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough." - Gene LeBell (off topic, but he’s the old guy who choked out Steven Seagal. Twice. In the same day.)
Heaudio123 wrote: " I would argue that unless the speaker has poor/uneven off-axis response, then it is the room..."
Totally agree!!
Heaudio123: "...and I don’t agree with your argument about Omnidirectionals amplifying room irregularity, as they actually have the opposite effect."
My wording was obviously poor; I am NOT arguing that omnis amplify room irregularities! Quite the opposite in fact. Here is what I should have said:
IF room irregularity was the problem THEN omnis would be a bad choice for "problematic" rooms; but omnis are clearly NOT a bad choice for such rooms, thus we can conclude that room irregularity is not the problem.
(In terms of syllogistic logic, my argument takes this form: "If A then B; not B, therefore not A".)
Having hopefully cleared up the above-mentioned poor communication on my part, I agree with pretty much everything else you have posted in this thread. In particular you mentioned line source speakers... ime the 45-degree-pattern SoundLab fullrange electrostats work extremely well in problematic rooms, given sufficient distance to the wall behind them.
Toole theorizes that the ear is better able to decipher complex music signals when it is given "multiple looks" via multiple spectrally-correct reflections.
This is the best explanation I’ve heard, and is probably similar to cupping your ears.
Also why having a diffusor in the middle of the wall behind the speakers seems to have caught on.
@br3098 wrote: "omnidirectional speakers better mimic the music we prefer in the venues we typically listen live."
I get it! Good omnis have very rich timbre and convey a wonderful sense of spaciousness, especially when they have a bit of breathing room.
The omni and quasi-omni formats are already being done and done well; I see no window of opportunity for me to offer any worthwhile net improvements. This is one of the reasons why I’m barking up different trees.
"I don’t find that typical unidirectional dynamic drivers do as good a job of reproducing complex music... as do omnis."
Agreed!
Floyd Toole fell in love with the quasi-omni (technically "bipolar") Mirage M1 many years ago. Like you, he finds that a well energized, spectrally-correct reverberant field actually enhances the clarity of complex music. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, but it has has been my experience as well. Toole theorizes that the ear is better able to decipher complex music signals when it is given "multiple looks" via multiple spectrally-correct reflections.
I was pleasantly surprised when my first bipolar speaker design had noticeably better clarity than its monopole counterpart, which used the same drivers and essentially the same crossover.
Regarding dynamics, imo that is something a good narrow-pattern horn speaker does well, and not just because of its lack of thermal compression. You see, dynamic range is partially a function of how loud the in-room "noise floor" is relative to the direct sound. To the extent that the reverberant energy in the room constitutes a masking "noise floor", it can reduce the effective dynamic range. So imo there’s some juggling of tradeoffs involved in this area when it comes to radiation pattern width. Or, as you far more succinctly put it:
Duke and heaudio both make good points. But without hijacking this thread I will simply say that there are some folks (including me) that find omnidirectional speakers better mimic the music we prefer in the venues we typically listen live. I listen mostly to acoustic music; jazz, classical and small venue recordings. I don't find that typical unidirectional dynamic drivers do as good a job of reproducing complex music and full dynamic range as do omnis. Different strokes.
But I do agree with Duke's point about good/vs bad rooms: most rooms are not universally bad but are just bad for the specific speaker/design, speaker position, listening position and volume level from which you want to listen.
Duke another thing relating to what you said regarding the Ohms is that they opt to use a conventional tweeter normally angled in 45 degrees rather than attempt to reproduce the top end (higher frequencies are inherently more directional) omnidirectionally as well.
Compare with German Physics and the omni DDD Walsh driver which covers the higher frequencies while the low end is handled by more conventional bass drivers.
"Note that Ohm Walsh are not full but rather pseudo omni (polydirectional?) to manage the reverberative field better in most rooms. The driver is physically attenuated with absorbing material inside the can in the wall facing directions."
Now we are getting into the fine details of a highly evolved speaker design, the Ohm Walsh!
Imo there is at least one very good argument for their choice.
For the sake of brevity (which is NOT my strong suit!) I have been saying that the reverberant sound should have the same spectral balance as the direct sound, but actually it should have a little bit less top-end energy. This better approximates what we would hear in a large venue: Because of the long reflection path lengths in a large venue, the air itself somewhat attenuates the top-end energy in the reverberant sound, relative to the amount of top-end energy in the direct sound.
So I agree with Ohm, and do something similar when "voicing" my own designs.
For a more in-depth discussion, see Robert E. Greene’s article entitled "Records and Reality: How Music Sounds in Concert Halls":
Note that Ohm Walsh are not full but rather pseudo omni (polydirectional?) to manage the reverberative field better in most rooms. The driver is physically attenuated with absorbing material inside the can in the wall facing directions.
@erik_squires wrote: "Duke, Having a pro in the thread is like cheating. :)"
"If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough." - Gene LeBell (off topic, but he’s the old guy who choked out Steven Seagal. Twice. In the same day.)
Erik: "Can we define good though? I mean, I agree with the on/off axis description, but! What about imaging and detail?
"How would omnis compare to dispersion limited speakers like big ESL’s, line arrays or horns with narrow beam pattern? Pro acousticians I’ve read say that the better the dispersion control is, the less room treatment is required.
"The Omni story flies in the face of this, unless we don’t care about detail."
EXCELLENT points!
Literally EVERYTHING you have said here is why I don’t do omnis myself. (I use constant-directivity waveguide-style horns.)
Experiments with varying the level of spectrally-correct reverberant energy convinced me that there is a "sweet spot" above which the reverberant energy is arguably "too loud" and clarity starts to be degraded. The "sweet spot" level for the reverberant energy is lower than one would normally get from an omni or from a dipole.
The arrival time of our spectrally-correct reverberant energy matters as well, and imo a dipolar or bipolar radiation pattern is generally preferable to an omni pattern because of geometry: The path length for a bounce off the wall behind the speakers is usually longer than the path length for a bounce off the near-side wall. Imo we want to minimize the reflections arriving within the first 10 milliseconds or so (for the sake of clarity and imaging), but then after that spectrally-correct reverberant energy is generally beneficial (for the sake of timbre and envelopment). Credit to Earl Geddes for that 10 millisecond figure. Siegfried Linkwitz says something similar regarding reflection arrival times, though the figure he arrived at is 6 milliseconds.
The approach I use might be called a polydirectional (credit to the late great Richard Shahinian for that term). I use fairly directional main array and then a secondary, similarly directional array aimed up-and-back such that its energy bounces off the wall and then off the ceiling before reaching the listening area, to maximize the time delay without requiring as much distance from the wall as a dipole or bipole would. The level and spectral balance of this secondary array are user-adjustable, so that different room acoustic situation can be adapted to.
The fact that omnis sound good in many "terrible" rooms is imo proof that, in THOSE rooms anyway, the issue was not the room itself.
Duke,
Having a pro in the thread is like cheating. :)
Can we define good though? I mean, I agree with the on/off axis description, but! What about imaging and detail?
How would omnis compare to dispersion limited speakers like big ESL’s, line arrays or horns with narrow beam pattern? Pro acousticians I've read say that the better the dispersion control is, the less room treatment is required.
The Omni story flies in the face of this, unless we don't care about detail. (Yes, this is devil's advocacy)
I have honestly been of the opinion since my first encounters with Ohm Walsh speakers many years ago that more omnidirectional speakers do things right and others are inherently flawed in design.
Omnis radiate sound in a pattern more like if a real instrument were playing, whereas conventional more directional designs shoot all the good sound mostly forward in one direction only.
The pain people must go through to try and get directional speakers to sound good supports that the approach is inherently flawed.
My big Ohm F5s were hand picked for the troublesome L shaped room they run in. Planar and tower box speakers I tried in there prior just could not cut it at all.
Omni speakers have been mentioned several times, and there is definitely something they do right which contributes to dealing with terrible rooms: Their off-axis response has the same spectral balance as their on-axis response. Thus their reverberant sound is virtually identical to their direct sound, modifed by the room’s acoustics of course.
Now I’m going to make a claim that will probably be somewhat controversial: In MANY cases, "terrible room" is actually a speaker design issue, but it gets blamed on the room! You see, if the room was the root cause of the problem, omnis would be the WORST speakers for such rooms because they send the most energy out into the room for the room to screw up. But here in this thread we have many people who are experienced with omnis and quasi-omnis telling us the exact opposite!
What many speaker do WRONG over most of the spectrum, relative to omnis (and quasi-omnis like the Shaninians and Larsens and many dipoles) is, their off-axis response is significantly dissimilar to their on-axis response. When the ["terrible"] room reflects back a lot this spectrally incorrect off-axis energy, what we perceive is a weighted average of the direct and reverberant sound, and we make the mistake of blaming it all on the room.
(Now there definitely are room problems which clearly exist, such as too much or too little boundary reinforcement, strong bass modes, excessive asymmetry, too much or too little damping, slap-echo, and insufficient size. Speaker design can only go so far in addressing these issues.)
The fact that omnis sound good in many "terrible" rooms is imo proof that, in THOSE rooms anyway, the issue was not the room itself.
A thought experiment comes to mind: How would an unamplified acoustic guitar sound in the room? If it would suck (like due to excess slap-echo), then the room really is terrible. But if it would sound good, then the room may not be the root problem.
Based on my own experiments omnidirectional is not my radiation pattern of choice because I have concluded that less off-axis energy is actually preferable. That being said, the success of omnis (particularly in "terrible" rooms) clearly tells us what the spectral balance of the off-axis energy should be: The same as the on-axis energy.
Interesting thread. I would say that there are basically two ways to deal with a problematic room (but aren't they all problematic, to some degree?). First is by passive or active treatment. The former is classic room treatments, as little or as much as is needed. The second are active crossover networks and/or DSP, which includes source-based correction such as Dirac and others.
Second, you can minimize speaker/room interactions by using speakers with omnidirectional or dipolar designs. These may not overcome all the problems with your room but there are other advantages to these designs; namely soundstage and imaging. mapman mentioned Ohm Walsh speakers and alymere mentioned Linkwitz, both good solutions. I sold the Larsen line for several years and setup several pairs in absolutely dreadful rooms, mostly to the satisfaction of the buyer.
Myself, I have happily rediscovered Shahinian's great Obelisk speakers for my difficult living room and I love them, although they did necessitate a change from tube amplification to SS. But they do sound great!
I am probably limiting the sound quality I get by the room situation I have. But how bad is bad? I am aware of sound optimization for surround sound (e.g., Audyssey), but is there optimization for two channel set-ups? I guess I’m lazy about moving speakers around (not sure what I would do if I knew the best arrangement), but it would still be interesting to me to see what such a optimizing program would recommend.
I like Dynaudio a lot, but they have different house curves built in. I’ve seen W and V shaped curves built into different models, so none of them are the speakers I've heard are true neutral speaker that lets me listen to a variety of music in a variety of volume levels without that Dynaudio personality.
When listening you have to take this into account. Make sure the house sound is something you can live with, which I guess is the same advice as for most speakers. :)
Hi all. I'm new to Audiogon and have done more reading than writing. I tend to believe (would that qualify as IMO?) that a well designed speaker will perform well, more or less, in a wide variety of rooms. The better the room is for sound quality the better that speaker will sound. And of course, what you kit is comprised of plays a role, too. More importantly, enjoying the music, with the kit you have and in the room you have, is what it's all about. Of course, tweaking and tuning to within what is realistic in your life, goes a long way. Much better than ignoring the room altogether. But, enjoying the music is surely what it's all about. Back to a well designed speaker... I do like the approach that Dynaudio takes. They make wonderful sounding drivers, all engineered and manufactured in-house, providing them with the ability to control the end result in a superior way than many other speakers brought to market. Then, they engineer the given enclosure for those drivers from a total "system" approach to the finished product. This includes engineering the front baffle for directionality and, therefore, room interaction = acoustics at your ear. Anyway, that's my two cents on this matter. There are many wonderful products on the market. Make your kit, work with your room the best that you can, and enjoy the music.
KR at stereophile has been reviewing dsp based speakers. anthem arc, dirac, all the dsp software that measures and tunes the bass help., but the easiest solution thats free bepoletti said already, nearfield listening.
A speaker that sounds like it's in a treated room, perfectly positioned WITHOUT it being in a dedicated space with all the room tweaks would be the greatest invention since sliced bread.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
